PIERRE
You do not know what arguments I am going to present, or if I will use the terms you say are unacceptable. Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.
And it is not for you to say what arguments we may make or which words we use. Something's never change do they my friend such has your elitism.

STEVE (!),

You are now reducing methodological problems to "who is to say what arguments we use" and to "elitism".

Whatever you think about my comments, they are relevant. It is a matter of methodology. So, if you think methodology is not relevant, just say so.

Quote:

Your view of 31st August from what one can tell is based on accepting Mizen told the truth.
I will explain why I feel this is a false premise, not based on "if" or "what" or the testimony of Paul and certainly nothing to do with Thain and the slaughter men.
I will however give the alternative theories, such as the classic scam and your take on it too.
It will then be left for the reader to make up their mind. I suspect that probably appalls you, as the readers are not historians.

I see. It is "entertainment" again. OK. So it is now clear that you have not chosen "real science" which you told us you would. OK.

So perhaps Fisherman is better than you? At least he does no claim to use "science" without doing just that. Actually, I think he is looking better and better as a ripperologist!

Quote:

And No the 19th September Report is signed by both Swanson and Abberline, not just Swanson has you have now twice said.

Which page are you speaking about in the sourcebook, Steve?

Quote:

We disagree over the interpretation my friend accept such and live with it.

Indeed.

Quote:

I guess you can tell my patient is wearing thin.
I have no issue with this sort of attack

Ah! So now the questions posed and the criticism is an "attack"!

Very telling, Steve. One is no allowed to discuss your "methods", then one is accused of attacking.

Quote:

when I present my Hypothesis, indeed I expect far worse. However I did specifically ask that we did not descend to this before that point. And you have disrespected that request.

"Disrespected" Steve? In this very post you say:

Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.

And now you have this debate, you have encouraged me - and you tell me it is wrong?

Auto correct/predictive text on my phone.
I do try and manually correct if i notice it. Think you will find I did once on my last post but missed another occurrence.
A quick check of the last 7 or so posts show 3 missed I think.
Yes it is annoying I agree, please accept my apologies MS, will try and check more .

Steve

I have no problem at all with that, Steve. I understand what you mean.

You are now reducing methodological problems to "who is to say what arguments we use" and to "elitism".

Whatever you think about my comments, they are relevant. It is a matter of methodology. So, if you think methodology is not relevant, just say so.

Not at all, methodology is important we out such when cannot show how one reaches conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I see. It is "entertainment" again. OK. So it is now clear that you have not chosen "real science" which you told us you would. OK.

So perhaps Fisherman is better than you? At least he does no claim to use "science" without doing just that. Actually, I think he is looking better and better as a ripperologist!

Who has mentioned entertainment? However your comment says much.

Given that I have not actually presented any of my views yet, you comment is somewhat premature..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Which page are you speaking about in the sourcebook, Steve?

No idea as I have the kindle version, however the relevant text is copied at the bottom of Report 10 in the police section, I think you have missed it somehow.
the intro to the report in the source book reads:

"In a lengthy (15-page) Metropolitan Police report13 from the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, dated 19 September 1888, by Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, details of this investigation are given and of the Nichols murder:"

Very telling, Steve. One is no allowed to discuss your "methods", then one is accused of attacking.

Not true,I have made it clear several times that I have not presented my ideas or my methodology yet, something you seem to fail to grasp.

A comment saying one disagrees was what I was looking for, which would be noted and taken on board for part 3.
Instead you appear to want to have a full debate when you are not aware of what conclusion or suggestions will be presented or how those conclusions will be arrived at, you are guessing, and guessing incorrectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

"Disrespected" Steve? In this very post you say:

Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.

And now you have this debate, you have encouraged me - and you tell me it is wrong?

It was made clear that this in depth type of debate was not expected or needed for this section.
I asked for comments, which you made, and for which I was grateful, I disagreed with some of those comments and said so, the aim was once we had registered disagreement, it would be left for later debate, given that I HAD NOT ACTUALLY PRESENTED ANY OF MY HYPOTHESIS.

I can only assume that for some reason you have completely misunderstood the purpose of some of those comments I made. I have said things I do not necessarily believe and certainly do not intend to use in any future debate.

I did say I would release the witness statement tables and I am now able to do that. The files are in the form of searchable Pc's and the posted tables minus my comments.
The total size of the files is approx 1.4megs. There is of course no charge at all.
If anyone is interested drop me a pm and I will email the the files.

No idea as I have the kindle version, however the relevant text is copied at the bottom of Report 10 in the police section, I think you have missed it somehow.
the intro to the report in the source book reads:

"In a lengthy (15-page) Metropolitan Police report13 from the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, dated 19 September 1888, by Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, details of this investigation are given and of the Nichols murder:"

The 19 September report is MEPO 3/140 pages 242-256 and available for anyone to see on the National Archives website. I save you some time by posting the first and last pages of the report, signed just as the Sourcebook says it is.

It is with regret and some embarrassment that I have to inform members that my work will not be completed by the date I previously said.
There is simply too much to work through and write up. In reality we are looking at something very large, a book maybe. I hope to have finished by the end of January and post a summary report at that stage. And this is despite the fact I am doing this full time.

I am truly sorry for the delay in publishing my conclusion. However i may post an additional section I had not planned in the meantime, say part 3A. Not sure yet but it is a possability.